| Literature DB >> 30012989 |
Samendra Sherchan1,2, Syreeta Miles3,4, Luisa Ikner5, Hye-Weon Yu6, Shane A Snyder7,8, Ian L Pepper9.
Abstract
Advanced treatment of reclaimed water prior to potable reuse normally results in the inactivation of bacterial populations, however, incremental treatment failure can result in bacteria, including pathogens, remaining viable. Therefore, potential microorganisms need to be detected in real-time to preclude potential adverse human health effects. Real-time detection of microbes presents unique problems which are dependent on the water quality of the test water, including parameters such as particulate content and turbidity, and natural organic matter content. In addition, microbes are unusual in that: (i) viability and culturability are not always synonymous; (ii) viability in water can be reduced by osmotic stress; and (iii) bacteria can invoke repair mechanisms in response to UV disinfection resulting in regrowth of bacterial populations. All these issues related to bacteria affect the efficacy of real-time detection for bacteria. Here we evaluate three different sensors suitable for specific water qualities. The sensor A is an on-line, real-time sensor that allows for the continuous monitoring of particulates (including microbial contaminants) using multi-angle-light scattering (MALS) technology. The sensor B is a microbial detection system that uses optical technique, Mie light scattering, for particle sizing and fluorescence emission for viable bacteria detection. The last sensor C was based on adenosine triphosphate (ATP) production. E. coli was used a model organism and out of all tested sensors, we found the sensor C to be the most accurate. It has a great potential as a surrogate parameter for microbial loads in test waters and be useful for process control in treatment trains.Entities:
Keywords: microorganism; monitoring; online sensors; water quality; water reuse; water supply
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30012989 PMCID: PMC6069152 DOI: 10.3390/s18072303
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Real-time Sensor Laboratory.
Figure 2The sensor A response to E. coli in tap water.
Figure 3The sensor B response to E. coli spiked in Deionized (DI water: A) With Tryptic soy Broth (TSB) growth media (dirty) and (B) Washed cells (clean).
Figure 4The sensor B response to E. coli spiked in Filtered tap water: (A) with TSB growth media (dirty) and (B) Washed cells (clean).
Figure 5The Sensor B response to E. coli spiked in DI water with or without Natural Organic Matter (NOM).
Figure 6The Sensor B response to E. coli spiked (107 cfu/mL) in DI water containing Natural Organic Matter (NOM).
Figure 7The FL-EEMs of either E. coli & Natural Organic Matter (NOM) in DI water.
Raw microbial counts in waters from Green Valley (GV) and Ina Rd (Ina) WWTPs.
| Sensor C (ME/100 mL) | HPC (Counts/100 mL) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| GV 1 | Feed water | 4.4 × 107 | 3.8 × 108 |
| Permeate | 2.4 × 106 | 2.6 × 106 | |
| Brine | 2.4 × 108 | 2.2 × 108 | |
| Ina 2 | Feed water | 9.2 × 107 | 2.6 × 108 |
| Permeate | 6.2 × 106 | 1.0 × 107 | |
| Brine | 4.1 × 108 | 2.9 × 108 |
1 Green Valley WWTP effluent; 2 Ina Rd WWTP effluent.
Raw microbial counts in blends of Brine: Permeate representing incremental failure.
| Target Blending Ratio (%Brine:%Permeate) | Salt Passage (%) | Sensor C (ME/100 mL) | HPC (Counts/100 mL) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GV | 0.1 | 0.2 | 3.0 | 2.8 |
| 0.5 | 2.0 | 3.1 | 2.5 | |
| 1 | 4.6 | 3.0 | 2.5 | |
| 2 | 9.1 | 6.9 | 2.1 | |
| Ina | 0.1 | 0.6 | 5.6 | 12.5 |
| 0.5 | 2.3 | 6.3 | 14.5 | |
| 1 | 4.7 | 6.1 | 16.0 | |
| 2 | 9.3 | 10.1 | 18.0 |